Response to claim of Rabbi Breitowitz that forcing a Get is a mitzva

We turn now to the letter of Rabbi Breitowitz that actually defends the kidnapping and
torture of men who do not give their wives a GET on demand when the marriage is
broken.
There are two sections to our review and critique. Section One is a study of his choice of
words and statements in to discern his goals in this letter. Section Two challenges his
central theme that kidnapping and torturing men terribly until they gave a GET is a
Mitsvah, a good deed. I will show clearly that this is not the opinion of the present great
rabbis in Israel and of the Shulchan Aruch, Code of laws.
Let us begin Section One going through this letter paragraph by paragraph to see his
goals.
The letter from Rabbi Breitowitz defends Rabbi Benyomin Stimler and calls for dismissal
of the charges against him. It has ten short paragraphs.
Paragraph 1 says, I am submitting thisin support of Binyamin Stimlers renewed
motion to dismiss the criminal charges against him in the above captioned matter.Why
should the charges be dismissed? Either he was involved in kidnapping and torture or he
was not. If in Civil Law Stimler is guilty, on what grounds does Rabbi Breitowitz appeal
for a dismissal of the case?
Paragraph 2 says I did not addresswhether Jewish Law authorizes the use of some
form of physical coercion to compel a recalcitrant husband, for personal reasons of spite
or vengeance, or in order to extort payment or other unjustified conditions following a
civil divorce, refuses to authorize the writing of a GET to be transmitted to his wife. Let
look closely at this.
First of all, why does he mention Jewish law at all? This is a civil court trial, and I
understand that the Judge clearly stated the Jewish religious law should not be entered
into the trial. That is fine for rabbis in rabbinical courts, but has no place in a secular trial.
So why does he mention Jewish law at all? By saying that he does not talk about Jewish
law, does he just waste words, or is there purpose in these words? And if, as it seems, he
quotes other members of the defense team who did bring up this subject about Jewish
law, why did the defense do this in a civil trial?
What he and others in the defense are doing is talking to the jury and the public. He
wants to impress them with the idea that these rabbis are rescuing a helpless woman from
an ogre who refuses to give her a GET. Why is this person an ogre? Maybe he has valid
reasons for refusing the GET. Rabbi Breitowitz wrote, I did not addresswhether
Jewish Law authorizes the use of some form of physical coercion to compel a recalcitrant
husband, for personal reasons of spite or vengeance, or in order to extort payment or

Response to claim of Rabbi Breitowitz that forcing a Get is a mitzva

other unjustified conditions following a civil divorce, refuses to authorize the writing of a
GET to be transmitted to his wife.
Now, what he should have written was I did not address whether Jewish Law authorizes
physical force to compel a husband and stop. But he adds many more words placed here
in italics to compel a recalcitrant husband, for personal reasons of spite or vengeance,
or in order to extort payment or other unjustified conditions following a civil divorce,
refuses to authorize the writing of a GET to be transmitted to his wife. These extra
words are very powerful statements. They say that the accused rabbis are dealing with a
demon of a husband. Not a husband but a recalcitrant husband. This means that there
is a moral obligation or religious legal obligation to give a GET. The husband is plainly
evil. He withholds the GET for personal reasons of spite or vengeance, or in order to
extort payment or other unjustified conditions. The husband is now further demonized.
The only reasons for him to withhold the GET are to steal money from his wife, torment
her, or fulfill other unjustified conditions. Here the demonizing is almost complete. But
there is more. The purpose of this letter is to demonize the husband and allow us to
appreciate the selfless idealism of the goons.
Paragraph 3: A husband who engages in such behavior in violation of a rabbinic decree
that he provide a GET for his wife is an evil person. The demonizing is complete. How
did it get there? Because Rabbi Breitowitz adds a few words. The husband is now not just
a GET refuser but he violates the order of a Beth Din, rabbinical court. Now he is pure
evil. But is there another side to this story? One side is that the Beth Din is comprised of
people named Epstein and Walmark. A Beth Din like that is not a Beth Din, but an
excuse to make a lot of money for doing something absolutely forbidden by the Shulchan
Aruch. And the RCA Beth Din that issued a Siruv for the husband who didnt exist is
also a Beth Din that is not a Beth Din.
A Beth Din can only judge when they are absolutely impartial to both sides. In this case,
the Beth Din was founded to harass husbands. The husband is jumped, beaten and
tortured until he gives a GET. What about the obligation upon Beth Din to be impartial to
both sides in its judgment? What about the law in the Shulchan Aruch that Beth Din must
hear both sides equally and find out exactly what the reasons for both sides are? Was this
done here? Or was the husband beaten until he said I want the GET. And his side of the
argument was not interesting. After all, the Beth Din had by that time taken huge sums
of money. Were they going to listen to the husband and maybe return the money?
What about the rule in the Talmud not to take money for being a Beth Din? And even if
some small amount of money is permitted, Epstein demands tens of thousands of dollars
for this and for that and that absolutely negates the Beth Din. This Beth Din of Epstein
violated every basic rule that exists to qualify a Beth Din, and it has no status at all of a
Beth Din. Consequently all of the beatings that it gave are pure evil sins. The claim that
2

Response to claim of Rabbi Breitowitz that forcing a Get is a mitzva

they are a Beth Din when they violated every qualification for a Beth Din is also a great
sin, in addition to their other sins. Also, since their violence and coerced Gittin were in
violation of the Torah and the Shulchan Aruch, the GET they forced on the husband is
invalid. If the wife remarries her children are born from an invalid GET and they are
likely mamzerim. Of course, if there are children we surely will have to visit the case
carefully to save the children if possible, but the wife is surely a sinner. And Epstein and
his friends are surely sinners. If Rabbi Breitowitz ignored all of this, he doesnt know the
very beginning of the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpot that deals with Beth Din.
See Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpot chapter seven that a Beth Din must be impartial, it
must hate money. Thus in paragraph 12 we find, Any matter that brings benefit to the
Judge makes the Judge invalid to judge. Does sixty thousand dollars for a judge ruling
against the husband violate this rule? In chapter 9 we find the sin of taking payment to
rule falsely. Sounds like Epstein? They took money, beat up the husband, and that is a
Beth Din? And what of chapter 9 paragraph 5 One who takes money to judge all of his
judgments are negated. The exception is if he is a farmer and has to stop watering his
field, he may take money to hire somebody else to water his field. But to take tens of
thousands of dollars to beat up a husband and torture him until he gives a GET,
something completely forbidden by the Torah, especially for such a Beth Din, is not an
act of Beth Din but of criminals who love money.
The Gadol Hador the Kovneh Rov Reb Yitschok Elchonon Speckter ztl in Biare
Yitschok Even Hoezer 16:3 says that when Beth Din forces a GET when the Torah
permits it, it is a valid GET only because it is a command to obey the sages. But when
the people forcing the GET are not sages, but people who violate the Shulchan Aruch in
many ways and charge huge sums of money, a GET is a GET forced by a non-Beth Din
and worthless.
Par 3 continues its effort at talking about the evil of the husband by quoting the Jewish
Press and the GET LAW of New York State that husbands can be forced to divorce their
wives with a GET. Rabbi Breitewitz obviously agrees with them. Now, the Gaon of
Kovneh, Reb Yitshok Elchonon Specter, the greatest authority in the world several
generations ago, says that if a government forces a GET, even if the government agrees
with the Torah law that the person must be forced, many authorities consider the GET
invalid by the Torah standards, not just rabbinic standards. (See Biare Yitschok 10:2 DH
ach) But when Epsteins force the GET utterly in violation of Torah and Talmudic Law,
the GET is completely worthless and children born from it may be mamzerim. I say may
be because we dont just talk about children that way. Maybe there is a way out, and if
somebody asked me the question I would work hard to save the child.
Leading authority Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashev told me how much he opposed the
GET Law. But rabbis like Breitowitz and Epstein dont worry about the Shulchan Aruch
3

Response to claim of Rabbi Breitowitz that forcing a Get is a mitzva

and the Kovneh Rov and the greatest rabbis of these generations. They are helping ladies,
and making a few dollars besides.
In Par 6 we get to the point where Breitowitz tells us that it is a mitzvah for force a GET
even with physical force. He supplies no source for this. Because there is no source in the
Shulchan Aruch. I will tell you soon what the Shulchan Aruch does say about this, the
opposite of what Rabbi Breitowitz says.
He writes, Jewish law authorizes certain forms of force, as is indicated by authorities I
cite herein to support that conclusion. He adds, Freeing an Agunah so that she will be
able to remarryis a mitzvah, even if force is necessary to secure the husbands
expression of consent. So let us see his sources.
In paragraph seven he quotes Maimonides who says that a Court may beat a husband and
force him to divorce his wife when she wants her freedom because my husband is
repellant to me. The Shulchan Aruch Code of Laws does not rule as Maimonides says,
but as the major authorities Rabbeinu Tam, Ri, Rosh, Rashbo, Gro who disagree and
forbid coercion of a GET when the wife says my husband is repellant to me. The
Talmud is full of arguments and various opinions. If any time somebody wanted to beat
somebody up and steal their wife they just selected one authority out of many and go to
work beating and stealing, what kind of world would it be? But this is what Rabbi
Breitowitz obviously believes is the way to go. Just find somebody out there who is
rejected by the majorit y of authorities and the Shulchan Aruch Code of laws and then
announce that kidnapping and torture are a mitzvah.
There is another point here. A GET must be given willingly. So how can it be forced in
certain circumstances? The gemora explains that it is a mitzvah to obey the sages. That
is, if the Court commanding the beating and the GET is respected by the husband being
beaten, we assume that he gives the GET willingly when he says that he wants it from
force, because he respects the authority of the Court as Torah messengers everyone must
obey. But when people know that the Beth Din is not a respected one, but a group of
goons who charge tens of thousands of dollars to do the mitzvah of torturing the
husband and coercing a GET, the GET is worthless.
It is clear from the Shulchan Aruch that we will quote in Section Two of this critique that
the vast majority of divorce cases are not ones that the husband can be coerced physically
to give a GET. But Breitowitz has invented the idea that any woman who demands her
freedom and the marriage is over can force the husband with physical force to give her a
GET. This is not true. Only very rare cases qualify for physical coercions, or any serious
coercion, or maybe, any coercion, as we will show. Here Rabbi Breitowitz shows either
that he is ignorant of the Shulchan Aruch and the accepted procedures of Divorce Cases,
or he is saying blatant mistruths in order to help ladies get a GET.
4

Response to claim of Rabbi Breitowitz that forcing a Get is a mitzva

Paragraph 8 contains various sources to justify what these goon rabbis did, torturing
husbands to give a GET. None of the sources are accurate for the simple reason that
although the Talmud does say that some husbands can be forced to give a GET, these are
very few, and do not include wives who have had enough of their husbands and cant
stand them. Furthermore, a Beth Din that orders coercions must be a very prominent
Beth Din known to obey the Shulchan Aruch Code of Laws. I heard from the senior
authority in the world Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashev ztl of Jerusalem that any Beth Din
that practices coercing in violation of the Shulchan Aruch is not considered a Beth Din,
and its Gittin are invalid. Recently, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, Rabbi Shmuel HaLevi
Wosner and the major rabbis of Israel have issues letters published in a book distributed
throughout Israel and elsewhere, that any Beth Din that coerces husbands is an invalid
Beth Din, and its Gittin, divorces, are invalid. The woman may not remarry without going
to another Beth Din that honors the Shulchan Aruch. In that book Mishpitei Yisreol there
is a letter from fifty of the leading rabbis in America opposing coercion of Gittin through
going to civil court. Any wife that forces her husband to leave Beth Din and goes to civil
court is a terrible sinner. But Rabbi Breitowitz doesnt mention any of that. He is only
here to help ladies get a GET, regardless of what the great rabbis of Israel and America
have to say. And he is trying to give the impression that he, a rabbi, speaks from sources,
including the Shulchan Aruch, which we will show is completely wrong.
At the end of Par 8 Rabbi Breitowitz says, See also Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer,
Laws of Divorce 134:5 9. What did he see over there? It says that if the Law is that a
husband must divorce his wife and the husband refuses then we may coerce the husband
physically. But if the coercion was against the teachings of the Law and the Shulchan
Aruch, the GET issued by force is invalid. But Rabbi Breitowitz ignores that distinction.
He found somewhere the words that a husband can be coerced and he doesnt read the
rest of the paragraph. What we need to do therefore is to find out exactly what the Din or
Law is in the Shulchan Aruch when we may physically force a GET. None of this exists
according to Rabbi Breitowitz.
In paragraph 9 Rabbi Breitowitz quotes Rabbi Waldernberg a prominent Israeli rabbi who
says that when a husband has been jailed by the rabbinical courts and he still refuses a
GET he may be forced to give a GET with a beating. He does not mention where this was
said in Rabbi Waldernbergs books. But the statement, even if it is true, only means that
if a husband has been jailed by a rabbinical court for not giving a GET, then the
rabbinical court has decided that the husband is in that minority of husbands who can be
coerced, or that the coercion is something else besides the demand for the GET. The
statement does not mean that goons like Epstein can make a Beth Din and torture
husbands because the wife has the money to pay them.
In Par 10, the last paragraph, Rabbi Breitowitz states, On the basis of these authorities, it
is my opinion that Rabbi Stimler or any other defendant would be performing a
5

Response to claim of Rabbi Breitowitz that forcing a Get is a mitzva

mitsvah if he joined in an effort to secure consent to the writing of a GET from a
recalcitrant husband even if he anticipated that, notwithstanding notification of a
command from a Beth Din, physical coercion would be needed to overcome the
husbands persistence in refusing to authorize a GET.
He then concludes Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under
the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. I will
show that the foregoing is not correct. In the vast majority of divorce cases it is a sin to
coerce a GET. I will prove this from Shulchan Aruch and its major commentaries, and
the great rishonim early authorities who are our authorities of the laws taught in Shulchan
Aruch.
But there are other reasons that a gang like Epstein cannot make a GET with coercion.
There is also a serious question if any GET that he gives is worth anything. But
regarding coercing a GET there are other reasons why Epstein cannot make a kosher
GET according to the Torah.
The senior rabbis of Israel, aware of people like Epstein, have ruled that even a Beth Din
with a good reputation must not make a coercion without the permission and guidance of
one of the handful of great rabbis in the world, such as Reb Shmuel HaLevi Wosner
shlito. Epstein and Berkowitz are surely not in that category. Thus, even if it was a
mitzvah to coerce a husband to divorce with force, it would only be possible to do that
after a very senior Beth Din commands it. If so, everything that Breitowitz said about this
case is perjury or ignorance, or maybe both.